Men may be redundant [Archive]

FreeState

Apr 13, 2007, 01:04 AM

If so, can this ever be considered ethical?

Why would it be considered unethical? Because no man was involved? Because it it will only produce females? Because it would offend those who feel the need to tell others how to live their lives? :confused:

I think it would be more unethical to tell two people how to have a baby. Its a personal decision, and be that method adoption, in utero fertilization, surrogate moms or the old fashion way its a personal decision that is no ones business but the people wishing to become parents.

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 01:21 AM

Why would it be considered unethical? Because no man was involved? Because it it will only produce females? Because it would offend those who feel the need to tell others how to live their lives? :confused:

I think it would be more unethical to tell two people how to have a baby. Its a personal decision, and be that method adoption, in utero fertilization, surrogate moms or the old fashion way its a personal decision that is no ones business but the people wishing to become parents.

Perhaps because all those other methods of conception, at their most basic level, rely on a sperm cell from a male and an egg from a female. Perhaps because the process entails using bone marrow to develop rudimentary sperm cells - a cell that the female body normally doesn't produce. Perhaps because this would bring us one step closer to cloning - nobody said that it has to be another female. Perhaps if there was a treatment that could only produce whites or men or any other "advantaged" group, I think people would find it of concern.

Perhaps people will want insurance companies to pay for this. Perhaps it will be requested that Medicaid/their government pay for it. Suddenly a personal process becomes the business of everybody. Birth control was an issue for ethical debate. Fertility treatment was an issue for ethical debate. To presume that there is no need for debate, or at least discussion, is prematurely forgetting the effects.

Perhaps it is clearly ethical and the scientists involved need to ask permission just as a CYA precaution. Perhaps there are greater ramifications.

But, apparently these is nothing unethical in this process. Perhaps you could expound on why?

vniow

Apr 13, 2007, 01:28 AM

TheAnswer

Apr 13, 2007, 01:32 AM

The best part of this technology is that we can still use the term "boned". :D

For my part, I don't believe men are unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for, surplus, superfluous or redundant.

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 01:43 AM

It would be unethical for a lesbian couple to have a child that was a result of both parent's biology? If the sperm works the same as one from a male and there's no complications then what's the problem?

Would it work the same/not have medical complications either immediately or later? I don't know how you would find the guinea pigs. Who would want to gamble on their kid's health? And like I said above, if a couple (straight or lesbian) can do this, why not a single woman?

I can see a very practical benefit - this would cement the parental rights of both parties in the lesbian relationship, cutting down one major ethical concern to a lot of other fertilization treatments in lesbian couples that I believe was not adequately discussed (if the relationship is not legally unionized, whether by choice or law and one partner gets pregnant and the other never finishes the adoption papers, regardless of the reason, does that partner have parental rights?) .

But it's not the good that demands discussion, it's the bad.

FreeState

Apr 13, 2007, 02:14 AM

Perhaps because all those other methods of conception, at their most basic level, rely on a sperm cell from a male and an egg from a female.

So cutting out a male automatically makes it unethical? Why? If it was an infertile male that used his bone marrow to create a sperm to get a female pregnant would it be unethical? And if so why? In addition what if two men produced a sperm and an egg from the same method and used a woman to gestate the baby? Would that be unethical too? Why? just because the sperm/egg was not derived for two people of the opposite sex?

Perhaps because the process entails using bone marrow to develop rudimentary sperm cells - a cell that the female body normally doesn't produce.

Medical science allows for all sorts of things that the body does not normally do - it does not automatically make it unethical because it does not naturally occur.

Perhaps because this would bring us one step closer to cloning - nobody said that it has to be another female.

Perhaps if there was a treatment that could only produce whites or men or any other "advantaged" group, I think people would find it of concern.

Perhaps people will want insurance companies to pay for this. Perhaps it will be requested that Medicaid/their government pay for it. Suddenly a personal process becomes the business of everybody. Birth control was an issue for ethical debate. Fertility treatment was an issue for ethical debate. To presume that there is no need for debate, or at least discussion, is prematurely forgetting the effects.

These are all slippery slope argument that do nothing to answer the question posed by the original article. Birth control and fertility treatments were religious ethical debates. The debates on those issues focused on when life begins - it is very different IMO than if two people who happen to be women should be allowed to have children if it becomes medically possible.

Perhaps it is clearly ethical and the scientists involved need to ask permission just as a CYA precaution. Perhaps there are greater ramifications. But, apparently these is nothing unethical in this process. Perhaps you could expound on why?

If you see any specifics that you feel are unethical, and can explain why, I'll do my best to look into those, my opinion is always open to change as I learn, however it's impossible to to defend something that I do not see as existing.

solvs

Apr 13, 2007, 03:54 AM

bartelby

Apr 13, 2007, 04:01 AM

It's a pretty interesting concept. I have no trouble with it at all.

The first thought that crossed my mind was:

If you use an egg and bone marrow sperm from the same woman, would the baby be identical to the mum?

solvs

Apr 13, 2007, 04:08 AM

If you use an egg and bone marrow sperm from the same woman, would the baby be identical to the mum?

That would be getting into clone territory.

Mord

Apr 13, 2007, 04:45 AM

Men are insecure. ;)

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/jshepherd/2006/05/28/o_rly.jpg

biturbomunkie

Apr 13, 2007, 04:48 AM

does that mean i can sit back and enjoy a beejay more often than before?

xUKHCx

Apr 13, 2007, 04:57 AM

http://www.moviesection.de/v3/img/datenbank/1078657688junior2.jpg

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 06:31 AM

I have no problems with it providing the resulting offspring is healthy. Whenever someone comes up with something new, it's too easy for the general public to start thinking in absolutes. "What if this was used by/happened to everybody? That would be TERRIBLE!!!" In reality most couples will continue to conceive in exactly the same way as before. Other social groups, however, now have the option to conceive too.

Why would anybody be threatened by this?

bartelby

Apr 13, 2007, 06:35 AM

Why would anybody be threatened by this?

I bet there's some Southern State Americans who are scared ******** by something like this.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 06:39 AM

I bet there's some Southern State Americans who are scared ******** by something like this.
Of course, the religious types who accuse man of "Playing God" every time a scientific advance is made. All this stem cell stuff is very threatening to them. Real humans being created and cured by manipulating biology? That goes against everything they've been told to believe.

bartelby

Apr 13, 2007, 06:44 AM

Real humans being created and cured by manipulating biology? That goes against everything they've been told to believe.

Yet they're normally quite happy to be treated for illnesses and such.

Scarlet Fever

Apr 13, 2007, 07:15 AM

just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

if sex is so uncomfortable the woman needs to be in some way artificially inseminated, the guy needs to see someone.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 08:15 AM

if sex is so uncomfortable the woman needs to be in some way artificially inseminated, the guy needs to see someone.
:confused:

Have you read the article?

Scarlet Fever

Apr 13, 2007, 08:30 AM

:confused:

Have you read the article?

not closely enough, apparently :rolleyes:
i wasn't paying enough attention. my bad...

ok now for a second attempt at an opinion.

its gotta be dangerous creating sperm cells from female tissue. sperm cells are meant to be created in males, and egg cells in females. i'm all for innovation, but i don't believe cellular mutation like this is right.

jessica.

Apr 13, 2007, 08:32 AM

First, men will never be redundant to me. However, is this ethical? Is this really a question of ethics? I'm not sure that it is. Maybe I'm wrong.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 08:38 AM

First, men will never be redundant to me.
I'm definitely with you on that thought :D

However, is this ethical? Is this really a question of ethics? I'm not sure that it is. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think it is. Certainly no more than IVF treatment could be deemed unethical anyway. I'll be surprised if this is going to become that widespread outside those that really need it. Bone Marrow donation is supposed to really hurt. Anyone with other options open to them aren't going to want to go through it.

princealfie

Apr 13, 2007, 09:29 AM

princealfie

Apr 13, 2007, 09:29 AM

Of course, the religious types who accuse man of "Playing God" every time a scientific advance is made. All this stem cell stuff is very threatening to them. Real humans being created and cured by manipulating biology? That goes against everything they've been told to believe.

Science isn't the complete truth and it's way overrated in many avenues.

Thomas Veil

Apr 13, 2007, 09:44 AM

Real humans being created and cured by manipulating biology? That goes against everything they've been told to believe.To be fair, when we do it with vegetables, everybody gets all up in arms about Frankenfoods. Organic is better, we always say. So perhaps the further we get from natural biology, the riskier it gets. (And I do wonder about the fact that this is getting into cloning territory, too.)

On the other hand, this technique does explain Paradise Island.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 09:51 AM

To be fair, when we do it with vegetables, everybody gets all up in arms about Frankenfoods. Organic is better, we always say. So perhaps the further we get from natural biology, the riskier it gets. (And I do wonder about the fact that this is getting into cloning territory, too.)
When it comes to foodstuffs, organic is always preferable, but anyone here who says they would rather starve to death than eat GM food is lying. When we only have one option ahead of us, we embrace where science has helped nature along even if we would prefer not to have to. It's exactly the same with reproduction.

And cloning is something different. The offspring here isn't going to be a genetic copy of anything that has previously existed. The child will still need two genetic parents.

atszyman

Apr 13, 2007, 09:59 AM

That won't last. Someday scientists will announce that they've created a viable offspring using the genetic material from two eggs rather than the sperm/egg combo usually required (if they haven't already done it). At this point female-female couples no longer help population control and men will officially be obsolete.

Lucky for me that 1) obsolescence won't completely happen within my lifetime and 2) I've got one daughter, with another on the way so my current/near future offspring won't be facing obsolescence either.

I predicted this would happen in another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3130746), although I didn't see the creating artificial sperm portion.

Nobody said that it has to be another female.

Since females don't have a y-chromosome it would not be possible for a female-female genetic combo to be male.

islandman

Apr 13, 2007, 10:00 AM

There's nothing like the real thing. :)

Max Payne

Apr 13, 2007, 10:06 AM

Too many ethical approvals & even more unknowns.

Who will be the father of a lesbian relation daughter?

P.S. I can't understand my own question. :eek:

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 10:09 AM

And cloning is something different. The offspring here isn't going to be a genetic copy of anything that has previously existed. The child will still need two genetic parents.

Not an exact copy, but the two parents can be the same person - not cloning but close.

Anywho, I'm noticing that the argument is becoming "it's ethical because it's not unethical, and it's not unethical becuase it's ethical." I think much of the concern comes from the creation of sperm from the body of a person not designed to make sperm. Yes Freestate - if men were being used to make eggs I would ask that same question. Most medical advances are designed to help the body along in doing the extraordinary. This is reaching into "physiologically impossible." Also, you seem to have missed the bus with my point regarding birth control and fertility treatments. If people are ever going to ask for the procedure to be paid for by an insuring party, there better be some actual discussion regarding ethics.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 10:10 AM

Who will be the father of a lesbian relation daughter?
The one that has donated the bone marrow of course. The other one is the mother, since she has provided the egg.

Not an exact copy, but the two parents can be the same person - not cloning but close.
Now you see, that I would disagree with. I think there would most definitely be health implications there.

atszyman

Apr 13, 2007, 10:49 AM

I think much of the concern comes from the creation of sperm from the body of a person not designed to make sperm.

So if someone were to be found do be genetically immune to cancer and we reverse engineered the process to be viable in any human, it becomes unethical to do that because we're creating cancer immunity in a body that was not designed to have cancer immunity?

Just because the body was not designed to do something does not make it unethical. Fertility treatments help people who would otherwise be unable to conceive, aren't we creating babies in bodies not designed to make babies at that point?

Genetically speaking the offspring from a female female couple would not be all that different from situations where the male sibling of one of the partners donates sperm to fertilize the egg of the other partner.

Thomas Veil

Apr 13, 2007, 11:03 AM

Not an exact copy, but the two parents can be the same person - not cloning but close.Now you see, that I would disagree with. I think there would most definitely be health implications there.In-breeding with your own self? Sort of a high-tech version of "The Hills Have Eyes"? :D

It does give new meaning to the term, "Go **** yourself."

pdham

Apr 13, 2007, 11:03 AM

Not an exact copy, but the two parents can be the same person - not cloning but close.

But if we have two sets of genetic material from the same person come together to create a new genetic material wouldn't the new copy be an exact copy of the parent.

leekohler

Apr 13, 2007, 11:57 AM

Can I please have all the redundant men shipped to my place? :)

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 12:24 PM

But if we have two sets of genetic material from the same person come together to create a new genetic material wouldn't the new copy be an exact copy of the parent.

No. But, there would be similarities. I do think that it would put us on a dangerous path.

So if someone were to be found do be genetically immune to cancer and we reverse engineered the process to be viable in any human, it becomes unethical to do that because we're creating cancer immunity in a body that was not designed to have cancer immunity?

Just because the body was not designed to do something does not make it unethical. Fertility treatments help people who would otherwise be unable to conceive, aren't we creating babies in bodies not designed to make babies at that point?

Genetically speaking the offspring from a female female couple would not be all that different from situations where the male sibling of one of the partners donates sperm to fertilize the egg of the other partner.

I'm don't believe that this is ethical or unethical - I just wonder what the ethical implications are.

And yes, if there was a way to reverse engineer this immunity to cancer, I think that ethical discussion would be merited. I imagine it wouldn't be a cheap process, especially when you look at the investment that companies have made and their need to recover those costs. So, who gets it? And what are the potential side effects? Even if the immune person was in good health, what affect would it have on the rest of us mortals?

As for the fertility treatments, I have a hard time seeing the similarity between pushing nature and developing something new. This is like engineering a human to have wings.

atszyman

Apr 13, 2007, 12:31 PM

As for the fertility treatments, I have a hard time seeing the similarity between pushing nature and developing something new. This is like engineering a human to have wings.

You take the genetic material of two people who were previously unable to conceive and put the material together to create a viable offspring. It's what fertility treatments and IVF procedures do every day. The only difference here is the lack of a man's genetic material. I don't see this as being any more or less ethical than what the standard fertility/IVF treatments have been doing for years.

Queso

Apr 13, 2007, 12:35 PM

As for the fertility treatments, I have a hard time seeing the similarity between pushing nature and developing something new. This is like engineering a human to have wings.
Wings would be cool, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the people behind this are attempting. ;) Think of this as similar to already available treatments such as IVF, but a generation more advanced in terms of the science involved. Genetic material isn't being created in the lab, it's just being taken from one parent in a different form.

EDIT: I see atszyman beat me to it. If only I'd had wings.... :)

FreeState

Apr 13, 2007, 01:42 PM

Yes Freestate.... Also, you seem to have missed the bus with my point regarding birth control and fertility treatments. If people are ever going to ask for the procedure to be paid for by an insuring party, there better be some actual discussion regarding ethics.

I don't think I missed the bus. I just do not see the connection.

Sure you can argue the ethics of what types of health care and treatments should be covered - but weather they are covered by insurance or not does not make any procedure automatically unethical. There are plenty of ethical medical procedures that insurance companies will not cover.

dornoforpyros

Apr 13, 2007, 01:47 PM

ahh damn, I always knew our purpose would get outsourced to the woman. I just hoped it wouldn't happen in my lifetime :P

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 02:04 PM

You take the genetic material of two people who were previously unable to conceive and put the material together to create a viable offspring. It's what fertility treatments and IVF procedures do every day. The only difference here is the lack of a man's genetic material. I don't see this as being any more or less ethical than what the standard fertility/IVF treatments have been doing for years.

But the sperm in those instances is natural and a normally produced item. It's the production of sperm from the cells of a woman that rankles me. If there was a way to swap out the DNA in a given sperm cell with the DNA of the woman, I'd agree that it would then approach something similar to the fertility treatments.

I guess I just don't see the difference between producing a kid with the GM sperm and feeding the kid GMO food....

atszyman

Apr 13, 2007, 05:14 PM

But the sperm in those instances is natural and a normally produced item. It's the production of sperm from the cells of a woman that rankles me. If there was a way to swap out the DNA in a given sperm cell with the DNA of the woman, I'd agree that it would then approach something similar to the fertility treatments.

I guess I just don't see the difference between producing a kid with the GM sperm and feeding the kid GMO food....

Would you be raising this issue if the "sperm" cell had been created from the cells in the bone of an infertile man allowing his wife and him to conceive a child?

nbs2

Apr 13, 2007, 11:50 PM

Would you be raising this issue if the "sperm" cell had been created from the cells in the bone of an infertile man allowing his wife and him to conceive a child?

Nope. But I would raise it if the cells in the bone from the dude was being used to create an egg allowing him and his infertile wife to conceive a child.

Desertrat

Apr 14, 2007, 08:53 AM

Seems to me the ethics come in with respect to the physical health of the offspring, and the quality of rearing the kid to be able to fit in with society. How the kid came to be doesn't seem to me to be that important beyond the science.

Face it: For 99% of all people who really want kids, the "normal" way is a helluva lot more fun. :D

'Rat

solvs

Apr 16, 2007, 04:55 AM

O'rly
Yeah, we are.

Can I please have all the redundant men shipped to my place? :)
Have you seen most of us? :eek: Trust me on this one. You don't want that. :p

leekohler

Apr 16, 2007, 11:19 AM

Have you seen most of us? :eek: Trust me on this one. You don't want that. :p

Did I forget to mention that you'd be put through some serious physical training and grooming regimens before your arrival? :)

atszyman

Apr 16, 2007, 11:30 AM

Nope. But I would raise it if the cells in the bone from the dude was being used to create an egg allowing him and his infertile wife to conceive a child.

So if a man were born with a defect that made him unable to produce sperm you'd have no problems altering his bone marrow to produce sperm even though his body was incapable of doing it so he and his wife could conceive?

But if this procedure is done so that two women who are in a committed relationship and want to have their own genetic child it suddenly becomes questionable?

solvs

Apr 17, 2007, 02:49 AM

Did I forget to mention that you'd be put through some serious physical training and grooming regimens before your arrival? :)

If we don't do that stuff for our girlfriends, what makes you think we'll do it for you. :p

faintember

Apr 17, 2007, 04:10 AM

Hi, I am faintember, and I am from here to fulfill the first page prophecy of the evil, religious, Y chromosome carrying southerner that comes to say that this is a wrong idea!

This is a wrong idea.

Seriously though, the possibility of genetic issues arising from this is my concern. With normal testing of drugs and treatments the patient is the only person likely to be either harmed or helped, however with this female/female contraception the female who carries the embryo/fetus carries the normal risks of pregnancy along with the embryo/fetus itself, who is created through this scientific process that also carries the help/harm risk.

I'll try to explain it better, as it is even confusing in my head. With this type of contraception the potential child is the one that has the chance to pay the price for a lab technicians fault rather than the people choosing to embark on this process in the first place. Birth is risky even in the organic way, but this adds another level of complexity to the issue. If the offspring of one of these female/female contraception's would die either before or after death and the cause of death can be linked to a human-created genetic flaw (i.e. a lab tech screwed up) do we now have some criminal act on our hands such as involuntary manslaughter? If so, who is to blame, the lab tech, the parents, both or is it nobody's fault?

Hopefully my introductory stereotype did not hinder my message. I am more than willing to field questions/criticism as I may be totally off base.

edesignuk

Apr 17, 2007, 04:14 AM

There was a funny letter in the paper about this this morning.

"Men will still be needed to open jars and reverse the car out of the driveway" :D

atszyman

Apr 17, 2007, 08:31 AM

I'll try to explain it better, as it is even confusing in my head. With this type of contraception the potential child is the one that has the chance to pay the price for a lab technicians fault rather than the people choosing to embark on this process in the first place. Birth is risky even in the organic way, but this adds another level of complexity to the issue. If the offspring of one of these female/female contraception's would die either before or after death and the cause of death can be linked to a human-created genetic flaw (i.e. a lab tech screwed up) do we now have some criminal act on our hands such as involuntary manslaughter? If so, who is to blame, the lab tech, the parents, both or is it nobody's fault?

You raise a good point in that we do not know the full consequences of the genetically modified "sperm" but this would be an issue if the bone marrow were used from a guy or a girl, so this issue has nothing to do with the gender of who dontated the genetic material. In either case you are creating "sperm" from cells that were not "sperm" to begin with.

Some have already stated that if it were done to a male's bone marrow to allow a straight couple to concieve that would be fine:

Would you be raising this issue if the "sperm" cell had been created from the cells in the bone of an infertile man allowing his wife and him to conceive a child?
Nope. But I would raise it if the cells in the bone from the dude was being used to create an egg allowing him and his infertile wife to conceive a child.

but the genetic/health risks for the mother and embryo/fetus/baby would exist in both cases unless there is a massive difference in the bone marrow cells between males and females.

patrick0brien

Apr 17, 2007, 01:17 PM

Obvious question: Um, what's the fun in this?

Wherease the old way is so much damn fun!!! :D ;) :o :)

And methinks it'd be a tad cheaper too. Right?

faintember

Apr 17, 2007, 02:04 PM

You raise a good point in that we do not know the full consequences of the genetically modified "sperm" but this would be an issue if the bone marrow were used from a guy or a girl, so this issue has nothing to do with the gender of who dontated the genetic material.Correct, and I apologize for using the "female/female contraception" term. I had originally intended to say that I am against this, either in females or males. Sorry about the possible confusion.